Wizard of Oz in blu ray - Wire Removal ?? (1 Viewer)

I'm far more concerned about the mono track being altered to "fix" one of Garland's lines. I want the original mono track.

 

[rsmithjr]

There's no slippery slope, sorry. Others have pointed it out and so am I - audiences of the day were not looking for these things. I don't happen to think that's guesstimating at all. I saw the film in the 1950s and I certainly wasn't looking for it and hence didn't see it. I didn't see it, in fact, until the home video era. That's one of the reasons I think Hollywood has totally shot itself in the foot, with all these ridiculous extras on DVD and Blu-ray, where every trick is revealed. There is simply no movie magic left because everyone knows everything. I refer you to the words "movie magic" when those word actually had some meaning, and they certainly had meaning in 1939.

This is a good point that I have given some thought to. Here follows one case in point that bothered me.
In Dr. Zhivago, there is a terrific scene where a petal falls from a yellow flower as Omar Sharif walks by. I projected this 175 times in 1966 and always loved that scene. Beautiful!
In one of the recent special features, they reveal that the petal was wired with a solenoid so that they could make it drop at just the right moment. How craven!

 

[TonyD]

I apologize, I haven't been around here as long as some of you all and hadn't read all of the previous threads. It is a philosophical question that picqued my interest, and I had not ever had the chance to discuss it with anyone. As has been said, there is no single, simple answer, and I am sure it will continue to come up as more vintage films are prepared for blu-ray.

Nope don't apologize. I forget that some people haven't been around here very long sometimes.

 

[antoniobiz1]

As this is a philosophical rather than a technical matter, I think everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
The way I see it, there are two different points of view: one, commercial, and the other philosophical (what is right and what is wrong). I believe the wire removal is motivated by commercial reasons, even if is not apparent. It is much more apparent with DNR, grain reduction, image stabilization. They want the movie to look good on a 40" LCD. And I'm sure Patton or Out of Africa (the heavily DNRed editions) look great on a 40" LCD from a 20 feet distance. They want to find a new audience for an old product. So wire removal falls certainly within this category. You can't show a teenager a movie with wires when he just watched Transformers 3. And you can't show puppets in Star Wars, because the teenager will point it out. To say that audiences today are not radically different from those of 1939 is as ahistoric as can be. We are talking about people who went to the movies once a month (if that), did not own a tv, did not know what a phone or a computer was. People who had seen nothing. What would they care if a wire showed? They were amazed to see anything at all! Updating a film may find a new audience for it. And if you think about it they try every possible way to update if: degraining, colorization, DTS 5.1 on everything. And, quite frankly, I can't blame them. Their next Mercedes or their next boat is in the future, not in the past.
The other point of view is philosophical. If a classic book contains obsolete words, should they be changed so that new audiences can understand them, should they be changed? Should Shakespeare or Dante be updated? You see were I'm going. A film is a product of its time. You should not change it. You should watch it for what it was. I cannot be expected to watch the 1933 King Kong and be amazed that a giant gorilla is filmed. I would be if I was 20 in 1933. But I can watch it, or watch a Ray Harryhausen film for what they were. I mean, even Temple of Doom shows heavily its age. Update that too?
I am fascinated by the films themselves, not just by the story. Sometimes they are really a time machine. You watch "The Martins and the Coys", and see how feuds between mountain men were considered a simple fact of life, something perfect for a kid to watch. You watch the black centaurette in Fantasia, same thing. You watch the wires in Wizard of Oz, or the stop motion animation in King Kong, and get a little into the mind of the audiences of the time.
By this line of reasoning, it's easy for me to say that wires, grain, puppets and everything in between should simply stay, because they were filmed and accepted. Instead, scratches, dust and discoloration should go, because they were never there in the first place, and those who created the movie did everything they could to prevent them.
(hope my english is good enough to give you the patience to get to this point )

 

[Doctorossi]

Nice post, Antonio. I think the philosophical question surrounding this particular issue is a more complicated one because the current technology means that the movie will necessarily look different than it used to and the conundrum is not 'should it look different?' but, 'in which way should it look different?' (ie. you can leave it untouched, in which case the wires will be more apparent than they ever were before, or you can remove the wires).

 

[antoniobiz1]

Nice post, Antonio. I think the philosophical question surrounding this particular issue is a more complicated one because the current technology means that the movie will necessarily look different than it used to and the conundrum is not 'should it look different?' but, 'in which way should it look different?' (ie. you can leave it untouched, in which case the wires will be more apparent than they ever were before, or you can remove the wires).

The conundrum, to me, is only apparent. It is only a matter of which path you choose. If you scan the negative, you will see things that nobody saw (if you think about it, not even the director, that was forced to make a positive(i.e. a first generation copy) to see the colours). More resolution, but more wires also.
So the two paths: you treat your frame like just one thing. You have a chance to make it look exactly like it looked on its very best day in the very best cinema in 1939. You have a chance to restore it. I'm not saying you will succeed. In fact, you will certainly fail, because first you would have to exactly define what the original film was, which is obviously impossible. But you HAVE A CHANCE TO GET CLOSE. You can attempt to RESTORE.
But if you alter single element inside the frame, if you alter their balance, you will inevitably end up with an UPDATE. A remix by definition.
IMHO, of course.
(Thanks for the "nice post" remark. It is very interesting to read you too )

 

[haineshisway]

As this is a philosophical rather than a technical matter, I think everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
The way I see it, there are two different points of view: one, commercial, and the other philosophical (what is right and what is wrong). I believe the wire removal is motivated by commercial reasons, even if is not apparent. It is much more apparent with DNR, grain reduction, image stabilization. They want the movie to look good on a 40" LCD. And I'm sure Patton or Out of Africa (the heavily DNRed editions) look great on a 40" LCD from a 20 feet distance. They want to find a new audience for an old product. So wire removal falls certainly within this category. You can't show a teenager a movie with wires when he just watched Transformers 3. And you can't show puppets in Star Wars, because the teenager will point it out. To say that audiences today are not radically different from those of 1939 is as ahistoric as can be. We are talking about people who went to the movies once a month (if that), did not own a tv, did not know what a phone or a computer was. People who had seen nothing. What would they care if a wire showed? They were amazed to see anything at all! Updating a film may find a new audience for it. And if you think about it they try every possible way to update if: degraining, colorization, DTS 5.1 on everything. And, quite frankly, I can't blame them. Their next Mercedes or their next boat is in the future, not in the past.
The other point of view is philosophical. If a classic book contains obsolete words, should they be changed so that new audiences can understand them, should they be changed? Should Shakespeare or Dante be updated? You see were I'm going. A film is a product of its time. You should not change it. You should watch it for what it was. I cannot be expected to watch the 1933 King Kong and be amazed that a giant gorilla is filmed. I would be if I was 20 in 1933. But I can watch it, or watch a Ray Harryhausen film for what they were. I mean, even Temple of Doom shows heavily its age. Update that too?
I am fascinated by the films themselves, not just by the story. Sometimes they are really a time machine. You watch "The Martins and the Coys", and see how feuds between mountain men were considered a simple fact of life, something perfect for a kid to watch. You watch the black centaurette in Fantasia, same thing. You watch the wires in Wizard of Oz, or the stop motion animation in King Kong, and get a little into the mind of the audiences of the time.
By this line of reasoning, it's easy for me to say that wires, grain, puppets and everything in between should simply stay, because they were filmed and accepted. Instead, scratches, dust and discoloration should go, because they were never there in the first place, and those who created the movie did everything they could to prevent them.
(hope my english is good enough to give you the patience to get to this point )

Just want to make one point: The Sting looks just as crappy on a fifty-five inch TV from eight feet as it does on a much bigger screen projected at home. Bad is bad, period.

 

[Stan]

I personally don't have a problem with wire removal or general clean-up of the original film to remove flaws. They would stand out with today's technology and distract you from the story.
On the other hand, Spielberg and Lucas, altering and "adjusting" their films I don't agree with. Adding in new digital characters, changing dialogue or other changes is not acceptable.
We all love the originals, but sometimes they need a little help fitting into the high-tech gizmos we have now.

 

[antoniobiz1]

Just want to make one point: The Sting looks just as crappy on a fifty-five inch TV from eight feet as it does on a much bigger screen projected at home. Bad is bad, period.

Sorry, I disagree. If they try to make something look restored and faithful to the original and fail means that there is at least a chance next time they will get it right. You have hope, at least. If they go for an updated look, they will consider it a success, and keep doing it. It's the same difference between premeditation and accident.

 

[haineshisway]

Sorry, I disagree. If they try to make something look restored and faithful to the original and fail means that there is at least a chance next time they will get it right. You have hope, at least. If they go for an updated look, they will consider it a success, and keep doing it. It's the same difference between premeditation and accident.

It's nice that you disagree, but I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly in my post you're disagreeing WITH Nothing you've written above has anything to do with the post you were responding to, in which I said that the usual argument that people who don't watch on huge screens, i.e. forty-inch TVs or fifty-five inch TVs somehow find bad transfers acceptable at the smaller screen size is poppycock - bad transfers look bad at any screen size. That was and is my only point.

 

[antoniobiz1]

I personally don't have a problem with wire removal or general clean-up of the original film to remove flaws. They would stand out with today's technology and distract you from the story.
On the other hand, Spielberg and Lucas, altering and "adjusting" their films I don't agree with. Adding in new digital characters, changing dialogue or other changes is not acceptable.
We all love the originals, but sometimes they need a little help fitting into the high-tech gizmos we have now.

See, I think it's tragic that apparently that's exactly the idea that Spielberg and (especially) Lucas seem to share with you: they're giving their films the little help they need to fit into the high-tech gizmos we have now. If, to you, it's ok to remove this but not that, then you legitimate Lucas to remove what HE thinks should be removed.

 

[antoniobiz1]

It's nice that you disagree, but I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly in my post you're disagreeing WITH Nothing you've written above has anything to do with the post you were responding to, in which I said that the usual argument that people who don't watch on huge screens, i.e. forty-inch TVs or fifty-five inch TVs somehow find bad transfers acceptable at the smaller screen size is poppycock - bad transfers look bad at any screen size. That was and is my only point.

Ok, point taken. My misunderstanding. Sorry

 

[Doctorossi]

You have a chance to make it look exactly like it looked on its very best day in the very best cinema in 1939.

The question becomes, 'what was the very best cinema?' Was it the one with the most resolved picture or was it one with a less resolved picture, on which the wire was, consequently, less visible. Being that the probable goal of the filmmakers was for the wire not to be seen, it could be argued that a slightly less resolute presentation might be the preferred one.
Many people prefer the color look of IB prints, despite their being less resolute than their non-IB contemporaries. Again, we're left with a trade-off rather than a clear, obvious and universally-agreed winning approach.

 

I think they should just leave the wires alone. They don't ruin the movie anyway, and are only in a few scenes.

 

[antoniobiz1]

The question becomes, 'what was the very best cinema?' Was it the one with the most resolved picture or was it one with a less resolved picture, on which the wire was, consequently, less visible. Being that the probable goal of the filmmakers was for the wire not to be seen, it could be argued that a slightly less resolute presentation might be the preferred one.
Many people prefer the color look of IB prints, despite their being less resolute than their non-IB contemporaries. Again, we're left with a trade-off rather than a clear, obvious and universally-agreed winning approach.

I agree with you. But I could say (first solution off the top of my head): let's make a dual disc Blu-ray, one with the Technicolor look, the other with a different print (I'm not saying it's practical, just saying it's theoretically acceptable). See? We can get close. Or at least, closer to 1939. If you remove the wires, you will be stuck in 2012.
(Sorry, I'm getting annoying, I'll shut up now )

 

[SteveJKo]

....We are talking about people who went to the movies once a month (if that), did not own a tv, did not know what a phone or a computer was....

Nice post..........but may I offer one little correction? People in 1939 went to the movies a lot. And I mean a real lot. Today, many people probably couldn't even tell you the last time they saw a movie in a movie theater, it's been that long. But back then? Several times a week was a common experience. My mother once told me she averaged four times a week. By the time I was born (1959) we were living in the suburbs and TV had become the main entertainment medium of choice. I was lucky to get to the movies once a season. As you can imagine, being a movie lover I felt like I was born in the wrong era.
As to not knowing what a phone was, are you talking about cell phones? My grandparents had a phone (classic black corded land line of course) in 1939. And I believe it was a "party" line (wow, haven't thought of that term in years).

 

[Paul Penna]

Seems to me the appropriate place to retain the wires, and everything else that can be extracted from the original elements, is in the archival preservation materials. Making an exhibition copy from those is an entirely different matter. If, as seems clear to me anyway, there was no intention or expectation that the wires would be visible in period exhibition, carrying that through is completely justified.

 

[antoniobiz1]

Nice post..........but may I offer one little correction? People in 1939 went to the movies a lot. And I mean a real lot. Today, many people probably couldn't even tell you the last time they saw a movie in a movie theater, it's been that long. But back then? Several times a week was a common experience. My mother once told me she averaged four times a week. By the time I was born (1959) we were living in the suburbs and TV had become the main entertainment medium of choice. I was lucky to get to the movies once a season. As you can imagine, being a movie lover I felt like I was born in the wrong era.
As to not knowing what a phone was, are you talking about cell phones? My grandparents had a phone (classic black corded land line of course) in 1939. And I believe it was a "party" line (wow, haven't thought of that term in years).

Well...in 1939 people went to the movies once every three weeks, on average. http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/moviedata.html
And yes, I meant mobile phones. But 83 % of the population did not have access to a telephone in their area in 1940 (teledensity = 16.52) http://books.google.it/books?id=SnjGRDVIUL4C&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=telephone+penetration+history&source=bl&ots=qIdUiD90P5&sig=g1_Fe_yf9oRYSLy9QJol1LLkJ2k&hl=en#v=onepage&q=telephone%20penetration%20history&f=false page 233.
And I'm pretty sure Italy, my country, was not doing as well as the US.
On a side note, party lines were probably still very common in the US in the late fifties (see Pillow Talk - 1959 - Man, Doris Day was GORGEOUS in that movie
So lucky you and your family

 

[Stan]

Seems to me the appropriate place to retain the wires, and everything else that can be extracted from the original elements, is in the archival preservation materials. Making an exhibition copy from those is an entirely different matter. If, as seems clear to me anyway, there was no intention or expectation that the wires would be visible in period exhibition, carrying that through is completely justified.

Those were the words I was looking for. The intention or expectation.
Since we're still talking about wires, they weren't meant to be seen (kind of destroys the magic of the scene). Removing them with newer technology isn't altering the original intent of the director, it's providing what the director probably wanted at the time, we can just do it better now.
It's not changing the story, the color, the dialogue or adding new digital creations.
Making the kind of changes like Spielberg and Lucas did is far different than removing some wires to make a scene more believeable. We all know they are there, but seeing them pulls you out of the moment. You're not involved with the film any more, instead you're thinking about the wires you just saw and then picking apart other scenes, thinking "how did they do that" because you've been drawn out of the story and lost the "magic" of the director's intent.
This argument could go on for years, we all have our own opinions, but it makes for interesting reading and commenting.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well...in 1939 people went to the movies once every three weeks, on average. http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/moviedata.html
And yes, I meant mobile phones. But 83 % of the population did not have access to a telephone in their area in 1940 (teledensity = 16.52) http://books.google.it/books?id=SnjGRDVIUL4C&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=telephone+penetration+history&source=bl&ots=qIdUiD90P5&sig=g1_Fe_yf9oRYSLy9QJol1LLkJ2k&hl=en#v=onepage&q=telephone%20penetration%20history&f=false page 233.
And I'm pretty sure Italy, my country, was not doing as well as the US.
On a side note, party lines were probably still very common in the US in the late fifties (see Pillow Talk - 1959 - Man, Doris Day was GORGEOUS in that movie
So lucky you and your family

We still had a party line when I was a kid in the early 1970's.
Doug